[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Valmy]

Clearly this was a mistake.

What? No! I need you to stay around so we can talk Hockey.

You bastards leave BB alone!

[Zoupa]

I'm not sure how "let's see what the investigation reveals" is so egregious?

Jesus Christ folks.

[crazy canuck]

I'm not sure how "let's see what the investigation reveals" is so egregious?

Jesus Christ folks.

You're right, and if that is all that BB said nobody probably would've reacted to it.

But you're ignoring the bit that both Sophie and I actually reacted to.

[crazy canuck]

Last year, Immigration Minister Marc Miller was indirectly quoted by the CBC as indicating the three-year requirement is only a hard requirement going forward:

Miller said his department will offer "discretionary" citizenship grants for affected people who were born or adopted before Dec. 19, 2023 — the date of the original Ontario court ruling.

Potential "lost Canadians" born or adopted after that date who have a citizen parent who has spent at least three cumulative years in Canada are also eligible for citizenship under the interim rules.

The government's own backgrounder also makes a distinction between those born or adopted before and after the date of passage, only attaching the three-year requirement to the latter:

On June 5, 2025, the government introduced Bill C-3, An Act to Amend the Citizenship Act (2025), to extend citizenship by descent beyond the first-generation in a way that is more inclusive and protects the value of Canadian citizenship. The bill received royal assent on November 20, 2025, and came into effect on December 15, 2025. This means that IRCC now recognizes new eligible citizens and is applying the new rules for passing citizenship on going forward. With the coming into effect of this bill

    people who automatically became Canadian citizens under the new law can apply to get proof of Canadian citizenship
    people adopted abroad before December 15, 2025, by a Canadian parent born or adopted abroad can apply for Canadian citizenship for an adopted child
    people born or adopted abroad on or after December 15, 2025, to a Canadian parent also born or adopted abroad must demonstrate that their Canadian parent has spent three years in Canada when applying for proof of Canadian citizenship, or applying for Canadian citizenship for an adopted child
    people born before December 15, 2025, who automatically became Canadian citizens under the new law and were not previously granted citizenship, and who now want to give up (renounce) Canadian citizenship can apply through a simplified renunciation process

The IRCC website also makes this distinction:

If you were born outside Canada to a Canadian parent

If you were born outside of Canada before December 15, 2025, you're likely a Canadian citizen if your parent was also a Canadian citizen when you were born.

If you were born outside of Canada on or after December 15, 2025, to a Canadian parent also born outside of Canada, you're likely a Canadian citizen if

    your parent was also a Canadian citizen when you were born, and
    your Canadian parent spent at least 1,095 days in Canada before you were born

If your parent became a citizen after you were born

You're not automatically a Canadian citizen if your parent was granted Canadian citizenship after you were born.

There is still the question of chaining, as that final bullet from the IRCC site implies there may be limits on that, but all sources are clear to me that the three-year requirement does not apply to those people who are applying that GF has been talking about, as they would (potentially) have qualified before the new bill, and it was the new bill that added the three-year requirement.

Is there something wrong with my interpretation of these statements?  When GF partially quoted this earlier, you said it was saying the same thing as you, but that's not how I read it.

I'm not sure how many times I can say this and this will probably be the last time.


I posted the amendments to the act that came into force in December.  Those amendments make it clear that in each case there must be a significant connection with Canada by the parent of the person making the application.

I explained the reason for the legislation in another post and I won't go into detail about that again, but the brief summary is the amendments were made to deal with a constitutional challenge which made the legislation to narrow. Please go up thread and read the detailed reason I gave for that constitutional challenge.

In the bits you quoted from the website, there is a conjunctive "and" which includes the substantial connection requirement.  Please also note the word "likely".  The website is not meant to be a comprehensive description of entitlements.  It's just meant as a public notice that an amendment was made to the act and folks ought to go. Read the act to see all the details.

Lastly, the final paragraph you quoted not only means that there is a break in the "chain" it means that there is no possibility than to establish the requirements of the Canadian parent having had a substantial connection with Canada before the applicant was born.  That's just common sense not support for some implied argument that so long as there is some "chain" linking to some distant ancestor who wants stepped foot in Canada is all that is required to gain Canadian citizenship.

Do you have any idea how many tourists come to Canada and have done so since confederation?

The theory being supported by social media AI and GF is that the descendants of all of those people, no matter how many generations ago that tourists at foot in Canada, are now citizens.

[viper37]

Do you have any idea how many tourists come to Canada and have done so since confederation?

It's not about tourists, nobody ever said anything about tourists.

[Grey Fox]

Just making stuff up now to avoid acknowledging the pre-2025 situation and the death clauses of the citizenship act.

Will you also ignore people celebrating their citizenship in the coming months?

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

I posted the amendments to the act that came into force in December.  Those amendments make it clear that in each case there must be a significant connection with Canada by the parent of the person making the application.

I explained the reason for the legislation in another post and I won't go into detail about that again, but the brief summary is the amendments were made to deal with a constitutional challenge which made the legislation to narrow. Please go up thread and read the detailed reason I gave for that constitutional challenge.

You posted an excerpt.  I was responding to your statements with overviews from Canadian government websites, but I looked up the full text of the bill.  I think the full text of the act makes clear that the "substantial connection" only applies going forward from the date the act comes into force.  The first piece of evidence is the first clause in the except you posted; I missed this clause initially:

(3) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to a person born outside Canada on or after the day on which An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025) comes into force

This subsection introduces the "substantial connection" requirement in the form of 1,095 days of residency, and is the only place it is mentioned.  So, it explicitly does not apply to those born before the act comes into force.  Further evidence of legislative intent by Parliament is in the summary of the bill:

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to, among other things,

(a) ensure that citizenship by descent is conferred on all persons who were born outside Canada before the coming into force of this enactment to a parent who was a citizen;

(b) confer citizenship by descent on persons born outside Canada after the first generation, on or after the coming into force of this enactment, to a parent who is a citizen and who had a substantial connection to Canada before the person's birth;

(c) allow citizenship to be granted under section 5.1 of that Act to all persons born outside Canada who were adopted before the coming into force of this enactment by a parent who was a citizen;

(d) allow citizenship to be granted under section 5.1 of that Act to persons born outside Canada who are adopted on or after the coming into force of this enactment by a parent who is a citizen and who had a substantial connection to Canada before the person's adoption;

(e) restore citizenship to persons who lost their citizenship because they did not make an application to retain it under the former section 8 of that Act or because they made an application under that section that was not approved; and

(f) allow certain persons who become citizens as a result of the coming into force of this enactment to access a simplified process to renounce their citizenship.

The summary bullet pairs a/b and c/d make a distinction between those born before and after the act comes into force, and e indicates part of the objective of this change is to restore the citizenship of those who were unconstitutionally denied it in the past.  I think that is in keeping with the court ruling.  Considering this unconstitutional state is decades old, if the "substantial connection" requirement were allowed to be retroactive, there would be no remedy for those who were forced to break that substantial connection because they were wrongly denied citizenship.

In the bits you quoted from the website, there is a conjunctive "and" which includes the substantial connection requirement.  Please also note the word "likely".  The website is not meant to be a comprehensive description of entitlements.  It's just meant as a public notice that an amendment was made to the act and folks ought to go. Read the act to see all the details.

The conjunctive "and" is applied only to the section that starts, "If you were born outside of Canada on or after December 15, 2025".  It does not apply to the section that starts, "If you were born outside of Canada before December 15, 2025".  Also, while these sites aren't comprehensive, they are intended to be the first place laypeople go to get information about their situation.  If they are misleading about or contradict what the actual legislation says, that's a serious problem.

Lastly, the final paragraph you quoted not only means that there is a break in the "chain" it means that there is no possibility than to establish the requirements of the Canadian parent having had a substantial connection with Canada before the applicant was born.  That's just common sense not support for some implied argument that so long as there is some "chain" linking to some distant ancestor who wants stepped foot in Canada is all that is required to gain Canadian citizenship.

Actually, reading the bill I found that there is some level of chaining explicitly created by the amendments:

(4) Section 3 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1.4):
Citizen despite death of parent
(1.5) A person who would not become a citizen under one of the paragraphs of subsection (1) for the sole reason that their parent or both their parent and their parent's parent died before the coming into force of An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025) is a citizen under that paragraph if that parent — or both that parent and that parent's parent — but for their death, would have been a citizen as a result of the coming into force of that Act.

That's explicitl legislation implementing the intent expressed by summary bullet e.  That text is fundamentally incompatible with making the "substantial connection" requirement retroactive.

Do you have any idea how many tourists come to Canada and have done so since confederation?

The theory being supported by social media AI and GF is that the descendants of all of those people, no matter how many generations ago that tourists at foot in Canada, are now citizens.

What do tourists have to do with anything?  This is about people who have ancestors that were wrongly denied Canadian citizenship.  Nothing in the amendments makes a tourist any more eligible for citizenship than they were in the past.

Also, I want to be clear here, notwithstanding the couple anecdotes GF posted from Reddit about people actually getting citizenship under this act I'm relying entirely on the text of the bill, two government websites that should be authoritative (ialbeit not comprehensive), and a credible news report on the legislation.  I'm not outsourcing any fact-finding or analysis to Gemini, Reddit, or anywhere else other than credible news reporting on the subject.

[viper37]

While were distracted about some issues, the Supreme Court ruled against the Liberal Party and in favor of the Bloc candidate for the last general election.  One vote counts.

There will be a new by election for the Terrebonne riding.

Supreme Court nullifies Liberal single-vote election win in Montreal-area riding

[crazy canuck]

Do you have any idea how many tourists come to Canada and have done so since confederation?

It's not about tourists, nobody ever said anything about tourists.

Yes, and it the hypothetical that demonstrates the absurdity.

[crazy canuck]

Baron, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that the substantial connection requirement only applies to one instance. If you go back to the amendments that I quoted, it applies to numerous circumstances in the amendments.

Just think about the absurdity that would be created by requiring a substantial connection criteria going forward but not requiring it for people prior to December 2025.  If there was ever a case for a charter breach, that would be it.

edit: and to be more precise I will again reproduce the material sections of the Act, amending the legislation.

Not applicable — after first generation
(3) Paragraph (1)�(b) does not apply to a person born outside Canada on or after the day on which An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025) comes into force
(a) if

(i) at the time of the person's birth

(A) only one of the person's parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under any of paragraphs (1)�(b), (c.‍1), (e), (g) to (j) and (o) to (r) and was born outside Canada,

(B) only one of the person's parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under paragraph (1)�(f) and was born outside Canada to a parent who was a citizen at the time of their birth, or

(C) both of the person's parents were citizens under any of paragraphs (1)�(b), (c.‍1), (e) to (j) and (o) to (r) and were born outside Canada and, in the case of a parent who was a citizen under paragraph (1)�(f), that parent was born to a parent who was a citizen at the time of their birth, and

(ii) neither of the person's parents who was a citizen was physically present in Canada for at least 1,095 days before the person's birth; or

(b) if

(i) at any time, only one of the person's parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under any of the following provisions or both of the person's parents were citizens under any of the following provisions:

(A) paragraph 4(b) or 5(b) of the Canadian Citizenship Act, S.‍C. 1946, c. 15,

(B) paragraph 5(1)�(b) of the Canadian Citizenship Act, S.‍C. 1946, c. 15, as enacted by S.‍C. 1950, c. 29, s. 2,

(C) paragraph 4(1)�(b) of the Canadian Citizenship Act, S.‍C. 1946, c. 15, as enacted by S.‍C. 1952-53, c. 23, s. 2(1),

(D) paragraph 5(1)�(b) of the Canadian Citizenship Act, S.‍C. 1946, c. 15, as enacted by S.‍C. 1950, c. 29, s. 2 and amended by S.‍C. 1952-53, c. 23, s. 3(1),

(E) paragraph 4(1)�(b) of the Canadian Citizenship Act, R.‍S.‍C. 1952, c. 33, as enacted by S.‍C. 1952-53, c. 23, s. 13(1),

(F) paragraph 5(1)�(b) of the Canadian Citizenship Act, R.‍S.‍C. 1952, c. 33, as amended by S.‍C. 1952-53, c. 23, s. 14(1),

(G) subsection 39B(1) of the Canadian Citizenship Act, R.‍S.‍C. 1952, c. 33, as enacted by S.‍C. 1967-68, c. 4, s. 10, or

(H) paragraph 4(1)�(b) or 5(1)�(b) or subsection 42(1) of the former Act, and

(ii) neither of the person's parents who was a citizen was physically present in Canada for at least 1,095 days before the person's birth.


To understand this amendment you also need to read the Citizenship Act - otherwise the references in the amendment will make no sense.  Which, parenthetically is what I suspect has happened here both with the AI tools and the casual readers of the legislation.

Section 1 is the section which states who is a Canadian citizen.  Subsection (b) states:

(b) the person was born outside Canada after February 14, 1977 and at the time of his birth one of his parents, other than a parent who adopted him, was a citizen;

Now go back and re-read the amendments posted above which deal specifically with this section.  You will see the substantial connection test (stated in the negative) is found in all circumstances in which this section of the Act might apply to persons born outside Canada.

[crazy canuck]

While were distracted about some issues, the Supreme Court ruled against the Liberal Party and in favor of the Bloc candidate for the last general election.  One vote counts.

There will be a new by election for the Terrebonne riding.

Supreme Court nullifies Liberal single-vote election win in Montreal-area riding

Yeah, it's a nice little example of the importance of honest people of good faith running elections. The mistake would not have been known if the person who made the mistake had not come forward to tell everyone that he in fact had made a mistake when he was addressing the envelopes to go out to the voters who wanted to vote by a mail.

Since this was such a close election in this riding, the court had no difficulty concluding that the mistake had an impact on the election and a new election was ordered.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Baron, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that the substantial connection requirement only applies to one instance. If you go back to the amendments that I quoted, it applies to numerous circumstances in the amendments.

I explained how I came to the conclusion.  My first quote from the bill is the first line of your larger quote.  It clearly says it applies to those "born outside Canada on or after the day on which An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025) comes into force".  That line conditions all of the sub-bullets under it, including (but not limited to) the 1,095-day residency requirement.  Does it not?

Just think about the absurdity that would be created by requiring a substantial connection criteria going forward but not requiring it for people prior to December 2025.  If there was ever a case for a charter breach, that would be it.

I don't see an absurdity; what is it?  If that's a charter breach, why is the language "born outside Canada on or after the day on which An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025) comes into force" in the bill at all?  What, specifically, does that language signify?

Also, would it be a charter breach to not remedy past actions that were later deemed unconstitutional?

Also, once again, how does this clause make sense if the substantial connection requirement is retroactive:

(4) Section 3 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1.4):
Citizen despite death of parent
(1.5) A person who would not become a citizen under one of the paragraphs of subsection (1) for the sole reason that their parent or both their parent and their parent's parent died before the coming into force of An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025) is a citizen under that paragraph if that parent — or both that parent and that parent's parent — but for their death, would have been a citizen as a result of the coming into force of that Act.

How can a person ever claim their parent had a substantial connection if their grandparent or grandparents were denied citizenship?  If they can't do that, then the "both their parent and their parent's parent" is pointless and nonsensical.  What, exactly, does that quoted language mean?